Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of ‘bit’ by Manuel S Morales

Dear Sir,

Wheeler's opinions are faulty as ex-nihilo is not a logical concept - never observed. Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Observation (measurements) implies the combination of three factors: observer, observable and observation (including instrument and mechanism). All three are independent variables, whereas their totality - the information - is a variable, because the observable evolves independently with time. That is the objective reality. Your effectual reality relates to information only.

Causality and determinism are evident in all equations. The left hand side of all equations represents free will or causality, because we are free to choose or change the parameters. The right hand side represents determinism, otherwise there would be no theories. The equality sign depicts the special conditions like temperature thresholds etc. that must be satisfied to initiate the reaction. The other factors in the field that may influence the special conditions brings in the uncertainty. For example, if the coin is dropped on the rim of the cup, air may play a role in determining whether it will fall into the cup or not.

We have discussed the double slit experiment using protons in our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31 with astonishing conclusions. You are welcome to visit us.

In various threads here, we have pointed out that there is a dimensional difference physical objects and their mathematical representation. The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

Your final conclusion rests with Nature. You should have pointed out the inter-connectedness and interdependence as the reason for selection than non-selection.

Regards,

basudeba

Manuel

"However, you are free to conduct the Final Selection Experiment for yourself in order to substantiate your stated position"

I do not need to do any experiment to prove the particular point, which is we cannot transcend our own existence (ie know the entirety of nature/any other such phrase). This cannot be done, and if you think it can please explain how. Somewhere in this exchange/essay you asserted this could be done with this notion of selection, which the more you explain, the more I can understand it to be a fallacy.

Incidentally, I am not challenging nature, I do not understand where you get that idea from. Especially since I have clearly stated that we cannot know that we know 'nature'. It is you who is asserting that, with this concept of selection, ie we can have more knowledge than is actually possible. What is absolute is what is potentially knowable to us of 'nature', much of which we will never get to know even then. And that is a function of a physical process which involves sensing.

Paul

Manuel

"our existence relies upon our ability to select. Hence No Selection = No Existence"

Nonsense. Our existence is no different to that of a brick, and does it have the ability to select? You may also have realised that our (and indeed any sentient organism) awareness of existence is enabled by the receipt of a physical input, ie existence exists independently of the mechanism which has evolved to enable possessors thereof to be aware of it. Or put the other way around, if all sentient entities were wiped out, existence would continue.

"Your insistence that nature is about 'knowledge' (bit) is false"

Really? So a)tell me how we can know what is not part of our existence, b) how we receive awareness of 'nature' other than through physically existent representations thereof (the obvious one being light).

I am then fully aware of the fact that what we can potentially know (be aware of), ie physical existence is a function of physically existent states and that something is causing alteration therein. That is, any given reality is the physically existent state at that time of whatever comprises it. In other words, more progress would be made investigating function (or influence as Kevin puts it) rather than substance.

Paul

Manuel

"Paul, you really do need to take up your argument with nature directly to see if your opinions are correct"

Take any 'object'. A bush in the garden for example. We know it changes (size, colour, leaves on/off, etc). If we examined it with an electron microscope we would see even more alteration. Yet we still call it the bush, ie the same object, when clearly it is different. And we rationalise that by conceptualising in terms of 'it changes'. Which is a contradiction because if it has changed then the resulting it is not the original it. The point here being that our entire ontological conception is wrong. We are deeming existence on the basis of superficial physical attributes, not how existence occurs. The bush is only a bush in the sense that it retains certain characteristics .

If we differentiated further until no more was possible, then what we would find is a physically existent state of whatever was being considered. In other words, that bush, as with everything else, is a sequence of definitive, discrete, physically existent states. Any given one is the reality at that time, only one state exists at a time. There are mechanisms causing these alterations.

This has nothing to do with selection. In the sequence of existence, as knowable to us, each state (or combination of) causes a subsequent state. How and why this all started is not knowable to us, because it is extrinsic to our existence. We can either invoke beliefs or a recurring theme which solves nothing. This concept: ""our existence relies upon our ability to select" is wrong. We, and any other sentient organism, do not 'select' anything. The only form of 'selection' involved is that what is potentially knowable, ie physical existence, is, possibly, only one form of existence, because it is a function of a physical process. But we do not do any selecting, we receive physical input. The extent to which we can then process that, and 'alter' it in arriving at a perception, is another matter. A perception is not reality, it is a perception of reality.

Paul

Manuel

I did not understand the purpose of the first paragraph. Then there is: "However, for a selection/state event...", where is the selection? This is followed by: "But like quantum mechanics, an indirect selection event only serves to give us a partial picture of what is going on". What selection event (let alone why was it indirect), and why is it only partial?

I might add in the context of asking those questions, that QM is incorrect, because it is based on presumptions that do not correspond with reality. As I said above, any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it. It neither occurs in any form of indefiniteness, nor does observation/measurement (or any form of sensing) affect the physical circumstance.

Paul

Manuel, This delightful essay really woke me up. It is refreshing to see real experiments used to look at interplay between information and causality.

Manuel,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Manuel

"You may find this ironic that I am in agreement with your position that QM is incorrect in the sense that it alone does not provide us a complete picture of reality"

Then you are not in agreement with me. QM is an incorrect model of physical existence because its presumptions are contradictory to how that occurs. Obviously, the work done is not all wrong, but that is not the same as 'not provide a complete picture'. For example, both the uncertainty and complementarity principles are wrong. Physical existence does not occur with some form of indefiniteness, whether we can discern comprehensively and accurately what did occur is another matter. Matter might exist in what we detect as particle and wave format, but it does not do so at the same time. Indeed, wave involves duration, ie a sequence of realities. So probably what is happening here is a confusion between the ultimate substance (which we is particle) and its physically existent state at any given time (reality), which in a sequence of realities is wave.

Your fig 8 confuses the range of logical possibilities for existence with what we can establish. Our physical existence is all that is potentially knowable (ie detectable). There may be another form of existence but we can never know it. So forget it, because that is religion, not science. Now, within that potentiality there is a huge proportion we do not know, but it is, or was, potentially knowable. For example, events that occurred long before any form of sensory system developed, or billions of miles away, are/were potentially knowable. The fact that we never had a chance of realising that potential is irrelevant. There was a potential. So the differential is between what we know and do not know of that which is potentially knowable. Not what is known and not known. The knowable is knowable (potentially). It occurred, it was definitive. Whether we missed the opportunity and get it wrong is entirely different matter.

"I find your perception of reality to be based on effectual causality when you stated, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever comprises it."

Why, what else is it then? And when answering that please stay within our existentially closed system and do not invoke some assertion extrinsic to that.

"I see reality not as an effect of itself but as, "...any given reality is a discrete, definitive, physically existent state of whatever causes it."

! What caused the reality in question is the previous reality. You only seem to have one reality. Which is obviously not the case, since there is difference, ie we are not stuck in one physically existent state ad infinitum.

Paul

Manuel,

thank you for stopping by and commenting on my essay. I read your entry and also looked at your site. The correlation that you found between the voters choice and the actual NFL winner is very intriguing (the bookies must be consulting your site daily lol). I also very much liked your artistic work. You pose interesting questions, bringing our attention to the fact that when examining complex phenomena it is hard to tell what are the causes and what are the effects. Does voters' choice reflect their confidence in their team? Or do both voters and teams merely reflect a hidden underlying reality? To me it seems like the second view is closer to truth.

This reminds me of a recent (3 years ago -?) experiments in psychology where 'operators' watching what essentially was a flip of a coin (something of a radioactive decay was actually used as the source of 'randomness' -- I don't recall the details now). So, the researchers found a statistically significant correlation between 'operators' guesses and the outcomes, suggesting some rudimentary form of precognition, or information flowing backwards (depends how one may prefer to interpret this). But imo the problem with such an interpretation is that it views operators and the machine 'abstractly', or apart from the real environment. What if both an operator and the machine were subject of underlying flow of.. time? or information or whatever.. and _that_ was the real 'cause' that 'made' humans to 'choose' between 0 and 1 and, at the same time, 'made' the machine to output 0 or 1. Curiously, it was the most relaxed and the least contriving (="trying to guess right") operators who had the best results. In other words, by simply following the flow they were getting it right.

You stirred these thoughts in my mind. Thanks for posing such interesting questions and good luck with the rest of competition :)

Manuel

« This sense of effectual reality requires interaction with it in order to exist. This means that this essay you are reading did not exist until you chose to read it. This of course defies all manner of logic, yet here we are. »

I totally agree with what you write in these lines. In a sense, the reality "for us" exists only when we interact with it. This does not mean it does not exist for others, or it does not exist for itself. That is my position.

Regards

Dear Manuel,

I hope for a good translation:

I read with interest your essay, and I am in perfect agreement with you that the reality is dual, as I also express it in my essay.

A question arises, to be completely consequent with what we assert, why the name of « quantum mechanics » if the reality is dual, why not « quantum and wave mechanics » ?

Thank you for appreciating my essay,

And I am going to rate your essay and good luck.

Amazigh